GWR Turbo cascade progress to Bristol region services

[jimm]

What stations on the current Cardiff to Portsmouth service will not accommodate a 5 car 165/166 formation?

This mainly applies to morning and evening services but I believe Dilton Marsh, Avoncliff, Freshford and possibly Patchway? Would all be too short for a 5 coach Turbo.

Then you also have stations on the Weymouth line when services are strengthened (summer or Xmas markets.)

Fitting a system allowing door selection or local door operation on the Turbos is not just about long formations, it's about making the units more useful, full stop.

An issue on the Cotswold Line ever since the Turbos were introduced has been that the three-car sets cannot call at platforms shorter than they are, due to the lack of any SDO or local door equipment (locking out the doors on one coach while in passenger service is not permitted, before anyone asks), so whenever the booked two-car Turbo is not available to work the Oxfordshire halts services and a three-car stands in, the halts lose their calls.

The issue was eased by the extension of the existing platform and building of a second three-car platform at Ascott-under-Wychwood during the redoubling in 2011 but at Shipton a three-car set can only call when heading towards Worcester, as the Oxford-bound platform is two coaches long. No one will ever pay to extend the platforms at Combe and Finstock, so up until now it has been a two-car or nothing for them.

 

[pompeyfan]

Personally don't think turbos will be suitable because they don't have inter-unit gangways. I'm sure they'll fit them out nicely but the lack of being able to walk between units must be a pain for all involved. Why not run the Turbos in the west, fit SWT style SDO to the 158s and run them as 5 car 158s on the route?

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Also, the 165s and 166s aren't fitted with SDO, so will it be retrofitted? Or else Turbos in multiple won't be able to call at stations like Dilton Marsh and Avoncliff, and also won't be able to stop at Freshford, Thornford, Yetminster and Chetnole if they are working in multiple...

Avoncliff's going to be fun, it can only hold half a 150 as the platforms are that short, no idea the length is at Dilton Marsh. As for Thornford, Chetnole and Yetminster what's the chance these stations could be board rear unit only even though they are request stops.

 

[Parallel]

Avoncliff's going to be fun, it can only hold half a 150 as the platforms are that short, no idea the length is at Dilton Marsh. As for Thornford, Chetnole and Yetminster what's the chance these stations could be board rear unit only even though they are request stops.

Dilton Marsh must be half the length of Avoncliff!

 

[Kite159]

Dilton Marsh must be half the length of Avoncliff!

Something tiny like that, local door only even on a 153

If anybody wanted something for reference, this be Avoncliff:

 

[NSEFAN]

Is local door only even possible on Turbos?

 

[BestWestern]

Is local door only even possible on Turbos?

As per above, it will be once they've been fitted with a door panel for precisely that purpose.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Personally don't think turbos will be suitable because they don't have inter-unit gangways. I'm sure they'll fit them out nicely but the lack of being able to walk between units must be a pain for all involved. Why not run the Turbos in the west, fit SWT style SDO to the 158s and run them as 5 car 158s on the route?

Not enough 158 units and no prospect of getting any more.

 

[D1009]

Wires to Bath won't be happening any time soon, I wouldn't think.

The Turbos will cater for short platforms not by SDO, but with the fitment of a 'local door' control which will allow the leading or trailing door of a unit to be released. This will be done from within the saloon, by the Guard. ASDO is expected for those sets remaining in the Thames Valley, I'm unsure if we'll see it on the West cascades.

I'd have expected that if there is any kind of refurb of a class going on, it will cater for all future uses of them, wherever they are deployed.

 

[jimm]

Personally don't think turbos will be suitable because they don't have inter-unit gangways. I'm sure they'll fit them out nicely but the lack of being able to walk between units must be a pain for all involved. Why not run the Turbos in the west, fit SWT style SDO to the 158s and run them as 5 car 158s on the route?

Passengers in the Thames Valley have somehow coped with services worked by coupled pairs of Turbos since 1993 - including ones that split en route at Oxford to serve the Cotswold Line and Banbury (or Stratford-upon-Avon in the past). The sky still hasn't fallen in.

If you know where GWR can get more 158s, please let them know. It would save a lot of money on life-extending HSTs for South West semi-fast duties.

 

[BestWestern]

I'd have expected that if there is any kind of refurb of a class going on, it will cater for all future uses of them, wherever they are deployed.

ASDO isn't a network-wide feature, and as usual there are various different systems available. Such equipment is only likely to be fitted if specifically required I would imagine.

 

[BestWestern]

If you know where GWR can get more 158s, please let them know. It would save a lot of money on life-extending HSTs for South West semi-fast duties.

*cough*Salisbury depot*cough*

Seriously though, I do wonder if we might see SWT's successor loaning sets to GWR. I imagine lending 158s to EMT is likely to cease, could an additional unit find it's way west instead?

 

[pompeyfan]

Passengers in the Thames Valley have somehow coped with services worked by coupled pairs of Turbos since 1993 - including ones that split en route at Oxford to serve the Cotswold Line and Banbury (or Stratford-upon-Avon in the past). The sky still hasn't fallen in.

If you know where GWR can get more 158s, please let them know. It would save a lot of money on life-extending HSTs for South West semi-fast duties.

Ah, thanks for the patronising tone, that's really appreciated and massively helps this conversation.

Now I'll admit my knowledge of Thames valley services is non existent, but I'd imagine it's a greater hassle on guard operated, trolley serviced, short platformed routes like Portsmouth to Cardiff, then the Thames valley.

I am obviously aware blunt ended units run in multi up and down the country, and the 800s etc are only going to increase the numbers.

One possible way around it (and yes I know it's fantasy. But it's realistic) transfer the Salisbury 6's back to GWR, run the route with 150s (158s are unsuitable as only 3 sets of end doors lead to high dwell times. In transferring the route over, SWR would send over X amount of 158s. The incoming turbos would make the 150s available.

Now I'm sure the helpful ones will no doubt be back to criticise me shortly.

 

[jimm]

Ah, thanks for the patronising tone, that's really appreciated and massively helps this conversation.

Now I'll admit my knowledge of Thames valley services is non existent, but I'd imagine it's a greater hassle on guard operated, trolley serviced, short platformed routes like Portsmouth to Cardiff, then the Thames valley.

I am obviously aware blunt ended units run in multi up and down the country, and the 800s etc are only going to increase the numbers.

One possible way around it (and yes I know it's fantasy. But it's realistic) transfer the Salisbury 6's back to GWR, run the route with 150s (158s are unsuitable as only 3 sets of end doors lead to high dwell times. In transferring the route over, SWR would send over X amount of 158s. The incoming turbos would make the 150s available.

Now I'm sure the helpful ones will no doubt be back to criticise me shortly.

My apologies, I'm just rather bored with people who go on about how all services need gangways their entire length (see Class 800 threads) - we manage, other countries manage. It's a fact of railway operations.

The Turbos have been operating on

guard operated, trolley serviced, short platformed routes like Portsmouth to Cardiff,

since 1993 - try a trip up the Cotswold Line past Oxford.

The lack of SDO and local doors has been a pain on the route all that time, as it meant three-car sets could not cover the peak halts stopping services - ie a two-car set works it (or an SDO-fitted 180) or no calls at the halts - and no multiple operation of Turbos in passenger service past Oxford, even on duties when loadings would more than justify it - such as just before Christmas when people would gladly trade riding in a three-car sardine can on steel wheels well out into the Cotswolds for the chance to have a seat on a 2+3 or 3+3 formation.

Mercifully, this year should be the last time passengers have to endure that kind of Christmas overcrowding past Oxford.

Re your proposal, if the first post in this 2014 thread

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=100384

is accurate, it would release three two-car 158s from SWT - your username suggests you will know whether this is anything like the number needed to lengthen enough GWR 158 formations to meet demand on Cardiff-Portsmouth - by comparison with a 3+2 Turbo formation made up of a 2+2 seated 166, carrying say 210-220 passengers, and a 3+2 165 seating 170 people

 

[swt_passenger]

*cough*Salisbury depot*cough*

Seriously though, I do wonder if we might see SWT's successor loaning sets to GWR. I imagine lending 158s to EMT is likely to cease, could an additional unit find it's way west instead?

No. The set with EMT stays with EMT, it is no longer part of the SWT fleet as listed in the ITT. But the set (on daily hire) with GWR can be permanently transferred via the ROSCO.

DfT put all the necessary statements in the franchise ITT, as has been pointed out previously:

To that end, only the following rolling stock may be proposed by Bidders for inclusion within the South Western Train Fleet:
a) The rolling stock that is comprised within the South Western Train Fleet at the date of issuing this ITT, other than the two DMUs that are currently sub-leased to East Midlands Trains and Great Western Railway;
b) Bidders must ensure that the DMU currently sub-leased to Great Western Railway is made available to the current Great Western operator and any subsequent operator of the Great Western franchise through to March 2020. This means that Bidder must:
i) EITHER continue to sub-lease one Class 158 unit to the Great Western operator (and any successor) until March 2020. Such a sub-lease must be 'at cost', i.e. with no margin on cost over and above the head lease;
ii) OR on the Start Date, release back to the ROSCO the Class 158 unit that is currently leased from South Western to Great Western, so that the Great Western franchisee may lease it directly from the ROSCO.

 

[pompeyfan]

My apologies, I'm just rather bored with people who go on about how all services need gangways their entire length (see Class 800 threads) - we manage, other countries manage. It's a fact of railway operations.

The Turbos have been operating on



since 1993 - try a trip up the Cotswold Line past Oxford.

The lack of SDO and local doors has been a pain on the route all that time, as it meant three-car sets could not cover the peak halts stopping services - ie a two-car set works it (or an SDO-fitted 180) or no calls at the halts - and no multiple operation of Turbos in passenger service past Oxford, even on duties when loadings would more than justify it - such as just before Christmas when people would gladly trade riding in a three-car sardine can on steel wheels well out into the Cotswolds for the chance to have a seat on a 2+3 or 3+3 formation.

Mercifully, this year should be the last time passengers have to endure that kind of Christmas overcrowding past Oxford.

Re your proposal, if the first post in this 2014 thread

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=100384

is accurate, it would release three two-car 158s from SWT - your username suggests you will know whether this is anything like the number needed to lengthen enough GWR 158 formations to meet demand on Cardiff-Portsmouth - by comparison with a 3+2 Turbo formation made up of a 2+2 seated 166, carrying say 210-220 passengers, and a 3+2 165 seating 170 people

If they were to be cascaded it would mean there would be 49 158 carriages in the GWR fleet, based on an 8 hour round trip that would require 40 carriages, 9 spare for maintenance etc. Turbos could then fill in on the Brighton and Weymouth jobs.

 

[Clarence Yard]

If they were to be cascaded it would mean there would be 49 158 carriages in the GWR fleet, based on an 8 hour round trip that would require 40 carriages, 9 spare for maintenance etc. Turbos could then fill in on the Brighton and Weymouth jobs.

But they are not going to be unfortunately - the question of extra units from SWT (and other sources) has already been asked. Nobody wants to swap units either.

The DfT has decreed that GWR have got to do the best they can with what units they already have in their fleet.

 

[pompeyfan]

But they are not going to be unfortunately - the question of extra units from SWT (and other sources) has already been asked. Nobody wants to swap units either.

The DfT has decreed that GWR have got to do the best they can with what units they already have in their fleet.

Yes, very good point, it was all hypothetical. Some don't see an issue with Turbo's on the 1Fxx, I personally think there's better ways around it, that's all.

 

[BestWestern]

Yes, very good point, it was all hypothetical. Some don't see an issue with Turbo's on the 1Fxx, I personally think there's better ways around it, that's all.

More short HSTs would have worked well, in my opinion (albeit with some tweaking of the calling pattern in the central part of the journey to tackle acceleration issues). Never mind, we shall see what the Turbos can do!

 

[pompeyfan]

More short HSTs would have worked well, in my opinion (albeit with some tweaking of the calling pattern in the central part of the journey to tackle acceleration issues). Never mind, we shall see what the Turbos can do!

I've seen it mentioned elsewhere (possibly even this thread) that HSTs wouldn't be able to run via Southampton central without a reversal at Eastleigh because a bridge on the Netley line is fouled by the footstep.

 

[JN114]

I've seen it mentioned elsewhere (possibly even this thread) that HSTs wouldn't be able to run via Southampton central without a reversal at Eastleigh because a bridge on the Netley line is fouled by the footstep.

Although; the vast, vast majority of gauging works aren't particularly costly or insurmountable. The only reason works haven't been done on the Netley line are because it's never been needed to run HSTs that way. If GWR did decide to put HSTs on Portsmouth trains then I suspect the gauge clearing work would be done quite quickly and easily.

But it's moot - the Portsmouth route will be 16x units.

 

[Wookiee]

The only reason works haven't been done on the Netley line are because it's never been needed to run HSTs that way.

I'm surprised it wasn't done when HSTs were operating the South coast inter-regionals, as that line is such a convenient diversion route.

 

[JN114]

I'm surprised it wasn't done when HSTs were operating the South coast inter-regionals, as that line is such a convenient diversion route.

Why do that when a perfectly usable diversionary route via Romsey, Laverstock curve and Andover exists already.

Anyway we're drifting way off topic.

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm surprised it wasn't done when HSTs were operating the South coast inter-regionals, as that line is such a convenient diversion route.

It is often pointed out that the problem is with the longitudinal girders on either the Hamble or Itchen bridges, (explanations vary), and that sort of work is not going to be straightforward or low cost. It would be on a completely different cost scale to the sort of minor tweaks to coping stones etc. Both bridges have multiple spans as well.

 

[Deepgreen]

Passengers in the Thames Valley have somehow coped with services worked by coupled pairs of Turbos since 1993 - including ones that split en route at Oxford to serve the Cotswold Line and Banbury (or Stratford-upon-Avon in the past). The sky still hasn't fallen in.

If you know where GWR can get more 158s, please let them know. It would save a lot of money on life-extending HSTs for South West semi-fast duties.

Ahem - have you looked outside today?!

 

[fgwrich]

It is often pointed out that the problem is with the longitudinal girders on either the Hamble or Itchen bridges, (explanations vary), and that sort of work is not going to be straightforward or low cost. It would be on a completely different cost scale to the sort of minor tweaks to coping stones etc. Both bridges have multiple spans as well.

I'm sure it's been pointed out before but, is the issue with the steps on the Power cars or the MK3s?

 

[BestWestern]

It is often pointed out that the problem is with the longitudinal girders on either the Hamble or Itchen bridges, (explanations vary), and that sort of work is not going to be straightforward or low cost. It would be on a completely different cost scale to the sort of minor tweaks to coping stones etc. Both bridges have multiple spans as well.

Although if the issue is with steps on rolling stock then the solution would probably be to look at modifying them, rather than the lineside structures. I assume the Netley road is/was cleared for 442s?

The West Turbos have clearance issues, the solution I believe is to be the fitment of a steel plate to raise their ride height, rather than spend vast sums altering numerous station platforms (as an aside, they will then become incompatible with their classmates remaining in the Thames Valley, and as such are expected to be renumbered into a /9 or similar series).

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm sure it's been pointed out before but, is the issue with the steps on the Power cars or the MK3s?

Power cars, because as has also been mentioned previously, the restrictions are written separately for CL 43 and the Mk 3s, as is usual for the sectional appendices that they appear in.

It can't be more than a few weeks since the last discussion of running HSTs on Portsmouth Cardiffs included all the same points.

 

[swt_passenger]

I assume the Netley road is/was cleared for 442s?

Yes. It was a routinely used diversionary route even if there was no timetabled service.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The West Turbos have clearance issues, the solution I believe is to be the fitment of a steel plate to raise their ride height, rather than spend vast sums altering numerous station platforms (as an aside, they will then become incompatible with their classmates remaining in the Thames Valley, and as such are expected to be renumbered into a /9 or similar series).

All the Turbos will be getting the ride height mod, not just the ones in the West. The first one is on mod at SPM now and will be returning to Reading very shortly.

Services which are single unit formation only, such as the North Downs, are the ones they will be first working in LTV.